Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 05-6076
(Western District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. Nos. 04-CV-570-M and
02-CR-171-M)
v.
DETRICK LARON FORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Detrick Laron Ford, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)
so he can appeal the district courts denial of the motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. See 28 U.S.C.
2253(c)(1)(B) (providing that a movant may not appeal the denial of a 2255
motion unless the movant first obtains a COA). Pursuant to the terms of a plea
agreement, Ford pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute
a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP),
-2-
assistance claim predicated on his assertion that counsel assured him his sentence
could be reduced after it was imposed to less than five years imprisonment. Ford
asserts that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve
this claim. He also admits, however, that he failed to present the issue properly
and cogently before the district court in an understandable way. He attempts to
place the blame for that failure on the jailhouse lawyer who assisted him in filing
his 2255 motion. It is well-settled, however, that there is no constitutional right
to counsel in post-conviction proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S.
551, 555 (1987). Accordingly, we decline to consider Fords arguments because
they were not adequately presented to the district court. See Green v. Dorrell,
969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992).
To be entitled to a COA, Ford must make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite
showing, he must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 322 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotations
omitted). In evaluating whether Ford has satisfied his burden, this court
undertakes a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal]
framework applicable to each of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Ford need not
-3-
-4-
Deputy Clerk